Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Gianni
But the separation was by mutual agreement and involved talks between the parties involved. Not the case in the confederacy.
350 posted on 05/15/2003 6:41:50 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
But the separation was by mutual agreement and involved talks between the parties involved. Not the case in the confederacy.

Not the case - but as a consequence of who? The South made clear their desire for separation in the declarations of secession. Representatives were sent to DC for the purpose of negotiating federal lands, trade, etc. Was there an opportunity for reconciliation?

We'll never know. Rather than attempt it the Federals covered their ears and screamed, "I'm ignoring you, I'm not listening to you."

Despite all the lofty rhetoric from 'statesman' on both sides, no consensus was sought by either. The South was hell-bent on leaving; the Republicans were hell-bent on war. Each pursued its ends with childish fervor, and IMO each was wrong to do so.

The difference is that the South would soon have seen the errors of her ways and (I believe) states would have begun to leave the Confederacy in short-order to rejoin their former Union. In contrast, there was no return from Lincoln's bloody war.

We live today as subjects of unchecked federal power. I would not make the mistake of saying that such would not be the case had it not been for the WBTS, but its contribution cannot be ignored.

352 posted on 05/15/2003 8:07:38 AM PDT by Gianni (Peace, Love, and Biscuits and Gravy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson